SCOTUS has spoken. There are to be no more so-called buffer zones established to protect operating abortion clinics in Massachusetts from pro-life protesters picketing the premises and attempting to accost clinic patrons with moral advice and anti-abortion literature at the entryway.
It should be noted that the reason for the buffer-zone law in Massachusetts was to protect not the clinics, but the patrons from the onslaught of negativity by protesters, at a time of already high anxiety. The state law gave a 35-foot safe area for access to doorway to the building, with protesters forced to stay that far away from the entrance.
The court decision is seen by activist pro-lifers as a huge victory, and headlines have already been posted about how "Obama" has received a "Smack-down." The truth, of course, is far less meaningful. There will, no doubt, be other measures implemented to protect clinic patrons from the wrath of pro-life activists at the most sensitive time in those patrons' lives. It is a cruel and macabre activity to attack patrons at such a time, but the targeting is understandable. These activists correctly interpret this time as a golden opportunity to sicken and warp the sensitive minds of women facing this decision. But that doesn't make it right, or fair, or just, despite their misguided intentions to "speak for the baby" who doesn't even exist yet.
Other measures of protection will surely be explored now that the buffer zone has been ruled unconstitutional in favor of the protesters. The simple fact remains that the zone was an affront to legal protest, despite its noble intentions regarding protection of the patrons. The unanimous court decision substantiates that fact.
The problem, of course, is the utter ugliness of some of these "protests," which are nothing short of torture for women already dealing with this burdensome crisis in their lives. It should be noted that the court's unanimous decision was tempered by the admission that some protection is probably appropriate, but that this state law just went too far to be considered constitutional.
Suggesting alternatives is the order of the day, at this point. What those alternatives will turn out to be, remains uncertain. But if the rights of protesters are important enough to permit them to harass and intimidate, then the rights of their victims will surely be addressed by the courts at some point.